Posted on 01/31/2020 7:05:27 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
It's public now. Don't expect transparency from the government.
We know much as a matter of fact. Misco, Ciaramella, ICIG Atkinson's work history in DOJ (he handled the flawed FISA applications), Mary McCord (contract employee to Team Schiff).
The government is trying to bury the fact of non-violent sedition by these players, so it plays dumb.
No story of palace intrigue is allowed to be acknowledged. That would put the government in a bad light, and this will not do.
Even more fundamental when you read the statute, the informant is not covered by it at all. This conclusion was also reached by the DOJ in an opinion specifically directed to this case, and published last September.
September 3, 2019 - DOJ/OLC Opinion: Complaint to ICIG Atkinson is not "Urgent Concern"
Schiff and the press have the public reading "urgent concern" as just normal usage of language, but that is a term or art that includes the limitation that the activity being reported is malfeasance by the IC, and only malfeasance by the IC. Malfeasance by POTUS (for sake of argument) is not malfeasance by the IC.
So, another academic point. If the informant reports something that is reported to the DOJ (this one was), and is a whistleblower, the IG can reveal the name. Presumably to the DOJ, not to the public.
ICIG statute is 50 USC 3033.
Ask yourself why the press doesn't inform you of this basic material.
There is a Vindman/Bolton connection too.
There is an Atkinson/DOJ (fake FISA warrants) connection too.
I figure there are hundreds of these little webs. we only see the one that spring into action. The government is like a terrorist org, no clear lines of reporting, independent cells. Even the courts are in on the resistance.
LOL, excellent reply
It’s not illegal. Period.
Full stop.
NOT ILLEGAL.
Yep - and the next day’s question that got through was the same only instead of using the name w/o the “whistleblower” descriptive, it used the “whistleblower” descriptive w/o the name - I’d like to think he’s pleased it worked out that way.
Ran Paul did not reveal the whistleblower. He simply asked a question about two people.
Roberts revealed that the whistleblower is one of those two people. The article is incorrect about Roberts revealing a single person as the whistleblower.
Senator Paul is learning a few moves from the Jujitsu Master.
Two words: Sydney Powell.
Vine an looks like the mailman on Seinfeld.
It’s been awhile, if ever, since he’s seen any PT, hasn’t it?
Chief Justice:
The question from Senator Johnson and the other senators for both parties.
Recent reporting described to NSC staff holdovers from the Obama administration attending an all hands meeting of NSC staff held about two weeks into the Trump administration, and talking loudly enough to be overheard saying, “We need to do everything we can to take out the president.”
On July 26, 2019, the House Intelligence Committee hired one of those individuals, Sean Misko. The report further describes relationships between Misko, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, and an individual alleged as the whistleblower. Why did your committee hire Sean Misko the day after the phone call between President Trump and Zelensky? And what role has he played throughout your committee’s investigation?
link = https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/impeachment-trial-qa-day-2-transcript-thursday-january-30-2020
So Senator Johnson deserves some of the credit because he leaves all the names except Eric Ciaramella in Paul's question.
We've all heard how this whistleblower business is an open secret, and everyone knows full well who he is for months now.
Every time I see John Roberts and impeachment in the same sentence my heart flutters. I wish we were impeaching him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.